On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 02:37:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > from Dave - before that it was asynchronous and in weird context, so > > it seems we defintively need it to be synchronous. > From the changelog it seems it needs to be synchronous in the sense that > we don't offload flushing to a different thread as we used to. Also the > reason why previously flushing didn't work was that we held page locks and > IO lock but it's not the case in xfs_file_buffered_aio_write() anymore. So > filemap_flush() still looks like an appropriate thing to me. > > > I agree that just flushing this inode seems like a rather odd handling > > for ENOSPC. It's even more odd as we already use the big hammer before > > in when we git ENOSPC in ->write_begin. The only thing I can imagine is > > that this is the last attempt to get anything freed. > OK, I'll leave it there then. I just wonder whether I should convert it > to filemap_flush() or to filemap_write_and_wait()... My preference would be to not touch it unless we have a good reason. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
